United States Presidential Election 2012

[EliteLennon117]

Mitt screwed himself over on this one. No way the lower class is going to vote for him now.

[SCope13]

i miss the voting age by a week....

Ooo, that sucks. Not that voting matters, but still. I just turned at the end of August, still need to get registered. No school tomorrow, so I might go ahead and take care of that.

[deadly_habit]

Romney chats shit behind closed doors (If he actually had the integrity to just say that shit in public it wouldn't be politics as usual), meanwhile https://rt.com/usa/news/obama-lohier-ndaa-stay-414/
Yep love the big 2 party choices, once again it's fucked either way
Still sticking with Gary Johnson since NY state doesn't allow write ins unless someone officially runs third party.
The fun part is figuring out the local state shit before November since the Federal level is generally fucked anyways.

[nowaysj]

Of course the ndaa is going to stand. Any judge that would decide against it could be taken and held indefinitely. No brainer.

[LACE]

filled in an absentee ballot for obama. don't know if it matters, but i just can't sit on my ass and not vote..

[alphacat]

Also, I'm probably voting for Jill Stein. I <3 SPUSA and all, but she just seems far more organized and viable than Alexander does.

I'm impressed. My dad's already gonna vote for her and I'm strongly considering it. I've made the mistake of playing the "vote for the lesser of two evils" game once; from here on out I will only vote my conscience, no matter how 'viable' they are as a popular candidate.

@Deadly - shit like this, and the fact that Obama has denied something like 3 times more FOIA requests than Bush - is what keeps the whole cycle afloat ironically. They promise everything and generate political liability for the other side to exploit, since people stick to their narrow partisan boundaries no matter what... while their chosen leader follows the overall grand capitalist design: Republicans & Democrats are flipsides of the same coin when it comes to professional politicians.

Which, btw, is the real core of many of these problems: the existence of politics as a separate career path instead of as a civic duty & privilege. Even when naive young politicians enter the game for the right reasons, it's a steady slippery path downhill for most every single one of them once the money starts flying at 'em... even when they don't take all the money offered.

An Alice Walker quote via Stein:

'The biggest way people give up power is by not knowing they have it to start with.'

[wormcode]

Did you guys know Roseanne got the nomination and is now running for president on the P&F Party ticket hahaha.

This would be the 2nd time I'm allowed to vote in the US if I sort something out, but I don't know where to do it since I don't live in the same place as last time, and might not even be in the US at the time. I guess I should look into the absentee thing as well then.

[LACE]

http://www.fvap.gov/

link for absentee ballots in case you need it

[Today]

the concept of the party itself has some great values and positions

Ew, fuck no.

so you guys don't think states' rights and individual freedoms are good values for the USA?

remember, i didn't claim any of their personnel or actual policies upheld these values
but they were at some point fundamental to the republican philosophy

[Today]

a true republican would vote for women's abortion rights, gay marriage, gun owners rights, medical marijuana, free enterprise (including letting the big banks fail and allowing states to regulate mmj laws/dispensaries)

they would reduce the defense budget and scale back the wars (or never have started them in the first place), they would get religion far away from politics and vote for/enforce freedom of and from religion

one thing they prob wouldn't support is the initiative to get corporate money and big anonymous donations out of campaign finance
because they'd view it as the corps' and candidates personal freedoms.

[SCope13]

a true republican would vote for women's abortion rights, gay marriage, gun owners rights, medical marijuana, free enterprise (including letting the big banks fail and allowing states to regulate mmj laws/dispensaries)

they would reduce the defense budget and scale back the wars (or never have started them in the first place), they would get religion far away from politics and vote for/enforce freedom of and from religion

one thing they prob wouldn't support is the initiative to get corporate money and big anonymous donations out of campaign finance
because they'd view it as the corps' and candidates personal freedoms.

What you're referring to are libertarians. The majority of Republicans are conservatives, not libertarians.

[Phigure]

the concept of the party itself has some great values and positions

Ew, fuck no.

so you guys don't think states' rights and individual freedoms are good values for the USA?

remember, i didn't claim any of their personnel or actual policies upheld these values
but they were at some point fundamental to the republican philosophy

"state's rights" are fucking absurd in the first place. it makes sense to a very limited extent, but why should something like the rights of a person be different in one state than another? eg, let states decide whether blacks deserve the right to vote.

[nowaysj]

"state's rights" are fucking absurd in the first place. it makes sense to a very limited extent, but why should something like the rights of a person be different in one state than another? eg, let states decide whether blacks deserve the right to vote.

Think on this further Phigure.

[Phigure]

like i said, it makes sense to a limited extent, but republicans always want to apply the "state's rights" argument to things like human rights. "let's just let states decide if gays deserve the same rights!" sorry, but the rights of people don't change based on geography

[nowaysj]

No doubt, those drooling idiots always want greater freedom for states to restrict the rights of their citizens.

That is why Federally enforced minimums are necessary, while still allowing a multitude of ongoing experiments in government to be carried out by the states.

[Today]

the rights of people don't change based on geography

they obviously do
just not as much within one single nation
but the USA is large, and very diverse. Thats probably why it's so impossible to govern fairly and effectively.
anyway it seems like the focus here is laws governing social issues
giving states more freedom it allows people to choose where to live and vote, and their votes would have a greater effect on their actual lives

Just move to a better state if you prefer their laws.

maybe federal power should be more for currency, defense, interstate commerce, etc
if we just left social issues to the states we could properly divide ourselves and live amongst the people we want to.
Sounds divisive in a negative way, but think about it.

[Phigure]

the rights of people don't change based on geography

they obviously do
just not as much within one single nation
but the USA is large, and very diverse. Thats probably why it's so impossible to govern fairly and effectively.
anyway it seems like the focus here is laws governing social issues
giving states more freedom it allows people to choose where to live and vote, and their votes would have a greater effect on their actual lives

Just move to a better state if you prefer their laws.

maybe federal power should be more for currency, defense, interstate commerce, etc
if we just left social issues to the states we could properly divide ourselves and live amongst the people we want to.
Sounds divisive in a negative way, but think about it.

right, because everyone has the means to just moves states whenever they want to

thats like telling someone to just move if unemployment is high where they live and they cant find a job

[alphacat]

re: States' Rights, Nowaysj - Agreed. States' Rights are part of the Bill of Rights (10th Amendment) and there for a critical reason, although definitely far from perfect: folks have definitely tried to pass off stupidity as States' Rights issues (namely segregation.)

One issue is that the structure of our government has drifted from the idea of the Federal gov't being the common ground of a voluntary association of sovereign states (and the meaning of the term "state" is often overlooked by Americans in this context) to being the de facto end-all be-all Government with a capitol G. This was not quite what the founding fathers - or at least a lot of 'em, since they all had their own ideas about what America was/was not - had in mind.

As a result, the original meaning & intent have been co-opted, re-interpreted, challenged, defended, and ultimately significantly changed by merit of the fact that the political worldview framing the original issue is completely different now.

So in principle, it's a safeguard against the central [Federal] government becoming too strong.

In practice, it's become the "why the rules don't apply to me" clause.

Given my trust in politicians of any stripe I'd say anything that affords more autonomy, as long as it's not at the direct expense of others, is probably a good thing. For example - Prop 215 is a bona fide States' Rights issue that the Feds & DoJ have fucking trampled all over with zero regard for constitutionality.

but...

maybe federal power should be more for currency, defense, interstate commerce, etc
if we just left social issues to the states we could properly divide ourselves and live amongst the people we want to.
Sounds divisive in a negative way, but think about it.

Great idea in theory... until you have groups that've drifted so far apart from each other that they no longer want to be part of the same polity. That's when really bad shit happens and ultimately why supremacy was given to the Constitution... i.e. you can't pass an unconstitutional law and then claim States' Rights to cover your ass.

For instance, while I support the right of free association and self-determination, lots of times the people invoking those ideas want the inverse of what they claim to want: not so much to associate freely with only white people or other Repubs or whatever; they want to actively exclude others from their associations, which is different altogether.

Finally, as regards the whole "if you don't like it move" tangent...

[magma]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-p ... 6201.story

Miners "not forced" to go on "mandatory" rally (!!?); all lose a day's pay in order to film Romney advert.

This is the 1%. He's not even TRYING to hide it anymore.

[AllNightDayDream]

He's finished. What a tool.